STATE VS. EDWARD RONALD ATES
Defendant appealed his conviction for the murder of his ex-son-in-law, arguing the unconstitutionality of the New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:156A-1 to -34, because it permitted the interception of telephone calls between individuals located entirely outside New Jersey. The court rejected this argument, finding no infirmity so long as the listening post was located in New Jersey.
Defendant also argued that the State should have been barred from using all intercepted telephone calls because the State recorded a telephone call between defendant and hisattorney. The trial judge precluded the use only of the calls intercepted after the recording of the attorney-client communication and the court concluded this was an appropriate remedy for the reasons expressed in the trial judge's written opinion, State v. Ates, __ N.J. Super. __ (Law Div. 2009). 05-17-12